[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B214007.2080409@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:37:59 +0300
From: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
ming.m.lin@...el.com, robert.moore@...el.com,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in_atomic
Pavel Machek пишет:
> On Thu 2009-12-10 20:58:45, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> Please elaborate... Your comments "ugly as hell" are too often to be
>> specific...
>> There is only one use of ACPI_PREEMPTION_POINT(), and it is in the
>> ACPICA code,
>> which we all agreed to keep OS independent, thus the need for #define.
>> Do you see any other way to add preemption point without introducing
>> Linux-specific
>> code into ACPICA?
>>
>
> I believe we want linux-specific code in acpica at this point.
>
>
The point there we call cond_resched() in ACPICA is an interpreter parse
loop. This parse loop may be executed from within atomic context and even
with interrupts off. In this case, cond_resched() should not be called
to not make
might_sleep() guards angry.
Please post the code, which will do the above and will not look "ugly as
hell".
I still don't follow your vague comments.
> (Or maybe... I guess other systems have concept of preemption and not
> all actions are permitted from all contexts, so maybe something like
> that would be important for them, too?)
>
None of them cared about it up to this point.
With the macro above we allowed them to follow Linux, but to go or not
is their call.
Regards,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists